What is Exactly An "Atheist"

I have had this discussion on other threads and I wanted to get your opinions on what most fellow Atheists consider an "Atheist".

I have always considered an "Atheist" as someone who does not believe in even the possibility of a God/Gods, an afterlife, reincarnation of any kind, energies "living on" or being "transferred to other forms" after death, ghosts/souls, and/or superstitious beliefs.

I have not considered Buddhists atheists as they still believe in "energies" and the sorts; and believe that people who say that they believe in the "possibility" of an afterlife as agnostics or the sorts - I have been an atheist for example since I was 15-16 and maybe an agnostic for a couple of years before then.

For example, I am sure that Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the likes all fit into the aforementioned definition of an "Atheist". So, what do you think?

Replies to This Discussion

Your definition is basically the same as what I apply to myself. Having seen people try to convince others that there are all sorts of supernatural processes and entities, with no evidence for any of them, I feel certain that there are none. The sense of certainty is for me the same as my certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow, or that gravity will continue to work. After this life, dead is dead. I have never personally seen evidence for afterlife, I have never seen a miracle, and the people who try to convince others have not proven themselves to be credible.

Given that religion seems universally harmful in so many ways, almost omnimalevalent, I might add "Antitheist" to that term, but that has more to do with my feelings about religion than about how I feel about life and the universe.

Sassan, your definition (and pretty much every other definition) of atheism depends on the undefined (or rather, nobody seems to agree on the definition of the word) word god.

If you assign the word god to mean just the Jewish-Christian-Islamic god, then by that definition I suppose even Richard Dawkins (who wouldn't really agree with you otherwise, were it a generic god) might agree with you.

If, however, you assign the word god to mean every single deity that has ever been believed in, worshipped, then you literally are saying that there is no possibility that any of those could exist, and I'm fairly certain you do not have enough data to say that.

Now, if you assign the word god to the code that is tied into the fabric the universe (a form of pantheism), then saying that you do not believe in even the possibility of a god existing means that you do not think there is a possibility for uniformity and order within the universe, which, quite honestly, is not how reality is.

But you seem to be saying exactly what just about everyone in this thread is saying: atheism refers to not having a belief in an entity called God. Whatever the definition of that God is then not really a problem: you lack a belief in it regardless.

However, if you are in the business of denying the possibility of any God or supernatural affairs altogether, as Sassan and Richard are doing, then you're simply investing the word with more than you could justify, and you're saddling yourself with a burden of evidence that you cannot maintain.

That's why the "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity" definition works best, and is both historically, etymologically and philosophically consistent.

I wasn't using it to prop anything up, I referenced it to show that someone else was basically saying that either of our definitions could be right, Johannes's post in no way supports your view as being the superior one.

I share the same definition of an Atheist. It is someone that accepts reality to the full extent, without any supernatural and paranormal phenomenon. To be an Atheist means to be skeptical, to apply scientific method and critical thinking for any new and suspicious knowledge, and/or to seek verifiable scientific proof achieved by real researchers.

Knowing the hidden fact that US gov. is in huge debt, Barack Obama with all his believers thought that he will make US Gov. debt free while the Military excercises still going on. Here Barack Obama and his believers are relegious persons. Rest others are atheist.

My problem all of my life was trying to find a 'box' that fit me. Christianity worked to a degree, but I never felt completely IN. Buddhism and Hinduism were appealing as well, but I could never competely fit in. A deist believes in something he cannot see or prove. The atheist says he does not believe in something he can neither see nor prove. The agnostic walks the fence between the two. What is the common ground here. We cannot see nor prove the existence of god, or some higher power.

Some push the envelope and believe in something unprovable. Others push the envelope and deny belief of something unprovable. Which is why I prefer the title 'Freethinker' because I don't feel so trapped in some manmade box of beliefs.

As a Freethinker, I can choose not to believe, or to believe just about anything. I can freely fellowship with any group and be at peace. And I don't have to worry who is right or who is wrong. The existence of some higher power has not been, and may never be proven - that is the bottom line. When you go beyond that reality you will immediately get trapped into some belief system that may or may not be true. Which is why many believe that atheism has become its own religion or belief system. When I was born into this world I was born as a Male in the white race. I was not born deist, theist, or atheist, just a white male in this human race. It should not have to be any more complicated then that.

The technical definition of atheism doesn't include the supernatural, but if you're an atheist who believes in the supernatural then you are not exercising critical thinking skills and skepticism or the scientific method.